Monday, July 25, 2011

Just For The Record, I Believe Gates of Vienna, Fjordman, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, and Even That Fruitcake Charles Johnson Are Blameless In The Charge That Their "Anti-Islam" Writings Were the Cause of Breivik's Choice To Murder People

So, fuck anyone who would make such a dumb, fucking assertion.

The same people will not blame Islam for coming right out and calling for the stoning to death of Apostates, Gays, and Adulterers.

The same people would not blame Islam for the enslavement of half their population, tying women up in the chains of the Burqa, not allowing them a choice the basics of their lives, such as education, marriage, going outside, etc.

As I wrote previously,
I believe that stoning apostates and gays to death is downright evil. I also believe that no human being has the right to determine the choices of another adult human being, and when they attempt to do so it is called slavery. Therefore, it is clear to me that Islam, in general, advocates the enslavement of women. I believe these things because my own experience tells me that

1) individual human beings ought to have autonomy in determining what kind of life they want to lead, as long as their choices do not end up violating the property or bodies of other individual human beings

2) individual human beings are born with various inborn tendencies, among them being various predispositions with regard to sexuality. Somehow, it seems that sexuality is intimately tied with our individual wills as human beings. I do not profess to have an extensive Philosophy on this idea, but it seems self-evident to me. I believe adult human beings ought to be able to freely choose how they express themselves sexually with other adult human beings, as long as they do not harm the bodies or choices of other adult human beings. 

Because I believe these things, I believe Islam, as a body of ideas, is evil. That does not mean that I believe that all Muslims believe these things, nor does it mean that I believe most Muslims are evil. I believe Muslims, as individual human beings capable of making their own choices, are evil to the extent that they believe these fundamental Islamic ideas (that gays and apostates should be stoned to death, and that women are the property of men) and are willing to live by these ideas to the point where they are willing to deny the individual choices of their fellow human beings.

I also believe that all these things I am writing are so self-evident that it is absurd that I should even have to write them. However, it seems we live in a world of people who are so scared to have conflict with other people that they have become unwilling to stand up for very fundamental Freedoms.

I find that pathetic.


Always On Watch said...

The same people will not blame Islam for coming right out and calling for the stoning to death of Apostates, Gays, and Adulterers.


BTW, sorry for being out of the loop here at IBA for the past 24 hours. Mr. AOW's "pool therapy" intervened.

Anyway, there is always a risk that somebody will grab any particular idea and go out and commit some kind of atrocity. The idea and the atrocity don't necessarily have a connection or a correlation.

For example, all these gun regulations. Suppose somebody got pissed off, went out and bought up all the guns and ammo he could afford, then shot up the town. Would that mean that the people who advocated gun regulations are at fault?

You could come up with better analogies I'm sure.

I'm exhausted today. I hope that I'm making sense.

Always On Watch said...

Maybe videocameras would be a better analogy.

Great devices for preserving memories. Great invention!

But pedophiles use them.

So does that mean that the inventor of the videocam is guilty of promoting pedophilia?

Always On Watch said...

Here's another.

Did railroad cars promote the Holocaust?

Pastorius said...

You're making sense to me, AOW. Of course, I'm an extremist who believes that Muslims calling for the murder of gays and apostates is absolutely wrong. So, I wouldn't take my word for it.

Alexander Münch said...

AOW & Pasto,

To whom you are apologizing ?

Always On Watch said...

I'm not apologizing.

ronmorgen said...

They weren't apologies, but it seems to me they are are making an incorrect assumption that these attackers have intellectual integrity. They do not. They only want to win. They do not care for logic, so why reason with them. There reasoning takes the huge leap from the murderer was a Christian conservative therefore all Christian conservatives are murderers. That is terrible logic, and evil slander.

Anonymous said...

I would go one step further pastorius and say not only would they not "blame" islam for current islamic behaviors such as stoning gays and women, or attacking non beleivers,

they will defend islam and attack christianity out of hand and as an immediate response to any challenge to islams so called peace fullness.

on more than one occasion I have been in a conversation that brings up islamic violence and the go to knee jerk reflex is to blurt out what about christianity.

its absolutely pathetic but that straw man attack is almost always the go to opening gambit by many.

D Charles QC said...

"So, fuck anyone who would make such a dumb, fucking assertion"

So wonderfully impolite and frankly naive.

My view is clear enough, you belong to the community that encouraged, provided fuel and because you are neither united, controlled and as much as you kick and scream, linked to hate, bigotry and racism - thus you must take some responsibility.

Having said that, this responsibility be it tiny, small or large IS AN ISSUE and thus you must work on it.

This does not detract, diminish or should it alter the need to point out the risks, dangers and hate that comes from radical Islamists.

Always On Watch said...

Of course they do not have intellectual integrity

However, if "charges" are not refuted, the lies will win.

There are others who are evaluating, I'm sure.

Epaminondas said...

So tel me Damien, does that make Noam Chomsky responsible for Ted K and his Montana retreat?

He was an inspiring seminal idea former for him?

Does it make Churchill, Jefferson, Franklin and Adams responsible for Utoya? They were CITED by this mutant murderer as well.

Your basis is factually incorrect
Your opinions are based on your dearest wishes rather than iron hard facts, and your dialect informs BOTH.

IN short, a troll

D Charles QC said...

EPA, that is a sad attempt at comparison. The reality is clear enough, it is the self-proclaimed anti-jihad movement on the internet. It is uncontrolled and a mad free-for-all of haters, fundamentalists, supremicists, bigots and those with agendas like the Settler Movement. Add to that professionals taking advantage (mostly to sell books or become politicians) have fed it and the weak minded not only embrace it but as we have seen go over-board. Now how you come to compare it is beyond reasons.

I am not the first to make that comment.

Additionally, I am not condemning the blogosphere or in fact the anti-jihad movement that are serious and not corrupted but even they need to understand that as long as your linked to this ugliness then you must bare some of that blame, you will never be fully accepted by the main population (ie remain fringe) AND MOST OF ALL you have damaged the real cause against radical Islamists and anti-integrationists.

Getting back to the long-winded title of this thread - your not the cause, of course not, but you are a factor nevertheless.

Anonymous said...

follow real logic guy,

man A hands gas and matches to man B who is a pyromaniac,

man B lights the gas and a house is burning,

man C rings bell to warn the neighborhood that it has a fire

along comes man D who is crazy and evil so he steps up and shoots man A's children becuase he percieves man A to have had complicity in the fire set by man B

you come along and look at man C and say this is partly your fault man C.

I call bullshit

Pastorius said...


Pastorius said...

This blog is so great. This blog is an excellent example of how people can be both rational and entertaining at the same time. I love watching this. It's a lot of fun.

D Charles QC said...

If you want to follow that formm of logical trail then I suggest a bit of context - remember that?

man A warns of dangerous islamists and anti integrationists

man B blames all of Islam

man C adds a few things that is more exageration than reality

man D demands deportations and a fight, banning and so on.

man E suggests a war or even a crusade

man F blames governments for being traitors

man G goes out and starts killing

The only one who is not to blame is man A.

Epaminondas said...

Damien, look we are here FOR ONE REASON ONLY... there are some people who claim they believe in a document which is the uncreated, always existing direction of a perfect being.

It is a racist document, INARGUABLY.

The ascendant group (of both branches) within that bunch claims it MUST BE their individual responsibility before god to commit certain acts to ensure that his words is the law.

They all AGREE that if the people are sovereign, god is not, and thus, if we run around making up laws laws out of our own heads, we are arrogating god's authority.

These same people cannot be reasoned off their path because they are following a perfect set of rules. There can BE no reformation because to claim it is needed makes one APOSTATE before the immutable, perfect, unchangeable rules.

We are those who resist that group.

That's all there is.

A 'Ted Kaczinski', and 'Charles WHitman' coming along citing RESISTANCE TO THIS GROUP as inspiration along with Jefferson, Adam Smith, the Constitution, Churchill, Putin, and whoever else some INSANE slob finds to jerk off to IS WITHOUT MEANING.

And, while we can argue over the proper ways to resist those who wish ONLY GOD'S RULES TO BE SUPREME, and while we can argue about rhetoric, in fact THOSE WHO WISH TO EXTEND THE DOMAIN OF THOSE RULES KEEP GOING AND SEE IN WHAT IS ARGUED THE HAND OF GOD WEAKENING RESISTANCE

You are an elitist fool, Damien Gibraltar.

It is your personal belief set, the one you are free to despise us with which will be the victim.

I am guiltless, and THIS BLOG IN PARTICULAR has suffered more calumny from those you blame than any other on 'this' side for questioning allies.

You, on the other hand, are in love with your ability to condemn because it makes you feel good.
Better than those who have staked out a moral position.

Pastorius said...

Pastorius wrote: I believe Islam, as a body of ideas, is evil. That does not mean that I believe that all Muslims believe these things, nor does it mean that I believe most Muslims are evil. I believe Muslims, as individual human beings capable of making their own choices, are evil to the extent that they believe these fundamental Islamic ideas (that gays and apostates should be stoned to death, and that women are the property of men) and are willing to live by these ideas to the point where they are willing to deny the individual choices of their fellow human beings.

HAVING READ THAT, DAMIEN WROTE: Damien wrote: man B blames all of Islam

Pastorius said...

In other words, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah you conflate ideas - blah blah blah blah blah

Really, Damien, if you want your thinking to be respected, you have to actually make distinctions.

D Charles QC said...

I will repeat what I put on the other thread....

"EPA and the rest.

My comments were clear enough, if anything you are all assuming perhaps as much as I do. I certainly did not know the history of this site and I ma relieved to know the feelings about racism and bigotry here. Having said that, your blog is linked to Wilders and the phrases you have used are generalised to a point that it is easy to confuse your motives.

Because of my location (I am a dual-Spanish national and accredited in both countries) I work with clients in Ceuta and Melilia which are Spanish Enclaves in North Africa and thus I have many Muslim clients. I travel to Morocco regularly as I can simply catch a ferry. Also I am a co-chiar of an international legal forum based in Kuala Lumpur and thus I go there reasonably regulary. Add to that out of interest with much of my client base, I have earned myself tertiary studies in Islamic history and politics.

Why I say this, so you also know "who I am". I base my views (and values) on evidence, academia and what I believe is evident realities on the ground. Not the blogosphere, rumour mills and bigotry that does alter facts. Spencer for example shreds context, Wilders equally so and there is building evidence that he is sponsored to do so.

I abhore Islamists, anti-Integrationists but I do not accept the Muslim's Koran as being a guide to hate as statistically there is more death, destruction and license to kill in the Old Testiment if taken literally. Sure, the point is that radical Islamists take their Koran literally but evidence also says that they stand by themselves and the five schools of Islamic jurispudence do not.

My biggest "beef" is with Western Muslims whom simply keep their mouths shut and thus mostly the agenda-based bigots stand-up and take the void that they have left.

There is a great deal in we share in views, the problem is drawing the line of what is and what is not acceptable and what impact that has on your own image and the arugments you can give, because in the end the objective is awareness, not amongst yourselves but the wider world."


Pastorius said...

Damien II,
Your list of contributions/achievements is noteworthy and impressive.

You write: ... evidence, academia and what I believe is evident realities on the ground ...

I respond: Would you agree with me that the facts on the ground in Morocco are nothing like the facts on the ground in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Sudan, and several other Islamic states which are based upon Sharia law?

If so, then, I submit to you that Academia does not fit in that list; "evidence, academia and what I believe is evident realities on the ground"

I say this because an Academic study of Islam is a study based upon evidence as presented in the written word, and field study research.

Your experience of Muslims in Morocco is not typical of the whole Muslim world. I know you know that. I write this only to make the distinction clear.

The governments of Iran and Saudi Arabia are based upon Islamic law as it appears in the Koran.

The governments of other, more moderate, Islamic countries are not as "strict" or "fundamentalist".

Our issue here is not with Islam as it is practiced by so-called "moderate" Muslims.

As I have repeated now, on several occasions, directly to you, our issue is with the murder of gays and apostates, and our issue is with what I see as the enslavement of women (taking away basic human free will in such fundamental areas of life as education, marriage, and deciding to go outside).

Damien writes: Spencer for example shreds context

I respond: Give examples of what you are talking about.

You write: I abhore Islamists, anti-Integrationists but I do not accept the Muslim's Koran as being a guide to hate as statistically there is more death, destruction and license to kill in the Old Testiment if taken literally.

I respond: You are not correct. The Old Testament includes passages where God directed the Jews to kill specific groups of people. The God of the Bible did not order His followers to kill, convert, or subdue every person on the Earth in order to establish his Law.

Mohammed gave direction to his followers to do just that.

Evidence for this fact is born out in reality. There are, indeed, nations such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Nigeria, and the Sudan, where people are forced to live by Islamic Law. There are no equivalents examples anywhere in the world with either Judaic or Christian law.

In Uganda, a couple years back, there was a proposal to use strict Biblical law, meaning death to homosexuals:

Pastorius said...

The private member's bill was submitted by MP David Bahati in Uganda on 14 October 2009.[1] Homosexuality is currently illegal in Uganda—as it is in many sub-Saharan African countries—punishable by incarceration in prison for up to 14 years. The proposed legislation in Uganda, however, has been noted by several news agencies to be inspired by American evangelical Christians. A special motion to introduce the legislation was passed a month after a two-day conference was held in which three American Christians asserted that homosexuality was a direct threat to the cohesion of African families. The bill, the government of Uganda and the evangelicals involved have received significant international media attention and criticism from Western governments, some of whom have threatened to cut off financial aid to Uganda. In response to the attention, a revision was introduced to soften the strongest penalties for the most egregious offenses to life imprisonment.

Pastorius said...

Intense international reaction to the bill caused President Yoweri Museveni to form a commission to investigate the implications of passing it. After the bill was held for further discussion for most of 2010, in May 2011, parliament adjourned without voting on the bill. It may be taken up again in the next session, expected to begin in June, but the bill would have to return to the beginning of the legislative process.[2]

Pastorius said...

Several Christian organisations oppose it, including the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, Integrity Uganda, Exodus International, Accepting Evangelicals, Changing Attitude, Courage, Ekklesia, Fulcrum, Inclusive Church and the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement. Exodus International sent a letter to President Museveni stating, "The Christian church ... must be permitted to extend the love and compassion of Christ to all. We believe that this legislation would make this mission a difficult if not impossible task to carry out."[51] A group of U.S. Christian leaders have released a statement to Uganda about the bill, one of these leaders being Thomas Patrick Melady, former U.S. Ambassador to Uganda.[52] The Anglican Reverend Canon Gideon Byamugisha said that the Bill "would become state-legislated genocide".[53]

Following private discussions with the Ugandan Anglican Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams has said in a public interview that he did not see how any Anglican could support it: "Overall, the proposed legislation is of shocking severity and I can’t see how it could be supported by any Anglican who is committed to what the Communion has said in recent decades. Apart from invoking the death penalty, it makes pastoral care impossible – it seeks to turn pastors into informers."[54]

Divisions emerged in the Anglican community however. In response to the Anglican Church of Canada intervention, the Bishop of Karamoja Diocese, Joseph Abura, wrote an editorial saying, "Ugandan Parliament, the watch dog of our laws, please go ahead and put the anti-Gay laws in place. It is then that we become truly accountable to our young and to this country, not to Canada or England. We are in charge!"[55] While the Anglican Church in Uganda opposes the death penalty, its archbishop, Henry Luke Orombi, has not taken a position on the bill.[56] Some individuals within the Anglican church, such as retired bishop Christopher Senyonjo, from the West Buganda diocese, have been vocally opposed to the bill and supportive of LGBT rights in Uganda. In 2010, Bishop Senyonjo was touring the United States to draw attention to the bill. [57]

Uganda's Catholic Archbishop of Kampala Cyprian Lwanga stated in December 2009 that the bill was unnecessary and "at odds with the core values" of Christianity, expressing particular concerns at the death penalty provisions. Lwanga argued that instead homosexuals should be encouraged to seek rehabilitation.[58] For its part, the Holy See has maintained excellent relations with Uganda, with Pope Benedict XVI receiving the Ugandan ambassador in December 2009 and commending the climate of freedom and respect in the country towards the Catholic Church. During this meeting, there was no mention of the anti-homosexuality bill.[59] However, three days earlier the Vatican legal attaché to the United Nations stated that "Pope Benedict is opposed to 'unjust discrimination' against gay men and lesbians".[60]

Pastorius said...

So, there is an example of an African nation attempting to enact a law prescribing the death penalty to gays. This law was, in part, inspired by the work of one particular American Evangelical named Scott Lively. He himself thought the law went too far.

But that is not to let him off the hook. He is an asshole. And, I hope he has learned from this. Frankly, the man should learn to go sell cars at a car lot, because he has done enough damage.


You will find no equivalent overwhelming and organized condemnation from Muslims.

In fact, I think it is safe to say, there is no Muslim political organization, academic institution, media outlet, or religious body anywhere in the world, of any appreciable size, which is moderate.

D Charles QC said...

Pastorius, you have made a number of points and raised some interesting questions, of which some I am in total agreement though others I take a different view.

For example, yes Morocco is in fact a good example of a working balance of a moderate Islamic country, but it is not alone though I would say the better example. So if we call Morocco one end of a "spectrum" then we thus can place the other 55 countries on that spectrum with Somalia a sure bet on the other end.

Since we are going into some details we should talk about Sharia. I get a great deal of Sharia legal details via my work as co-chair of an EU/ASEAN bi-annual Conference (the rest I will not give due to privacy reasons as my personal details and personal phone numbers would accessible).

When we talk about "The governments of Iran and Saudi Arabia are based upon Islamic law as it appears in the Koran.." it should be pointed out that there are as many interpretations and thus legislation/laws as there are countries that have Sharia. We should add that less than 50 per cent of the 56 nations have Sharia and of those that do, only a third have full "theocratically run" Sharia legal courts, the other two-thirds have Sharia only for family law and are subject to a secular Appeals Court.

The argument that Islam in the secular Muslim legal systems would still be Sharia "inspired" actually does not work, as the vast majority are carbon copies of their respective colonial governments. For example Morocco's legal system is based on the 1959 French system. Changes acted by parliaments, monarchs or whoever ran these countries have mostly did little to change them except for "social stability and morality" laws, which are not harsh.

D Charles QC said...

We can say that there are 13 hard-line countries and we all know what they are like.

What is interesting is that the quality of life, the impedement on growth, rights, economy and freedoms is not exclusive to Muslim countries, with your example of the Ugandan situation being just one example. Why is that? The logical conclussion is that it has to do more with social climate, economics and education. If we take away those 13 nations that are obviously ultra-conservative in nature and dominated by a particular version of Islam (because the other 43 countries do not support or subscribe to their views), it is not religion that is the factor.

Thes are the details that for me are academic as they are recorded, discussed and studied in depth. Therefore, logic dictates that the argument of Wilders is incorrect, that moderate Islam does exist because the sheer bulk of nations and population is not hard-line nor supporting it.

Unless, of course, you use the Spencer method that Wilders does, and that is chopping up truths by showing only those that suit them and when challanged they will say "yes but what I said is true".

The best example that both Spencer and Wilders does is the Koran quoting excercise. The best example is the "kill them all" quote from the Koran and though I have no copy of the Koran near me at present, the next versus after that quote talks about sparing lives and the reason for the contradiction to anyone who bothers to read the "entire" portion (or if you talk to most Imams) is that this is an example of 7th century tribal war and simply put Mohammed was also a war-leader and he was certainly not the only one but history in every arena has leaders who chose to "kill them all" or be "compassionate".

Fitna and much of Spencer or Fitzgerald's works are cuting and pasting with no basis in context and I ask you if any of their works are accepted in main stream academic circles?

If I have to bring this down to points, there are two.

Firstly - The interpretation of the Koran is many and it is more the haddiths that inspires to violence and not the Koran. Wahhabism and Salafism in fact add two haddiths and ignore seven to main stream Muslims and that tells a great deal. If criticism is to pointed, it is the schism and lack of control within the Muslim world that is condemnable and responsible. The five schools of Jurispudence have lost control. They have not supported an "jihad" though they are supposively the only ones who can declare such - so we can say that there is an attempted revolt against them.

Two - based on the view that it is not Islam but radical views that is the problem, then the action of blaming the Koran and the tennants of Islam as being at fault becomes by default incorrect and bigoted (which is my view). Wilders says he has no problems or blame on Muslims but considers the Koran to be evil and should be banned. That does not make any sense at all and is a bigoted statement because anyone who knows Islam and Muslims knows that the Koran, Islam and Muslims are a singular entity - you cannot have one without the other and thus Islam and Muslims are evil and should be banned (which is his real message).

My view is blame radical Islamism which is dominating much - but not all) of the Muslim world which in turn is taken advantage of by militants (Al Qaeda is political not really religious or the Iranian Revolutionary Guard which is similarly really political) and fed by poverty and illiteracy, post-colonial hang-ups and then exagerated - or concentrated - by western media and other interest groups.

Cheers, interesting subject.

Pastorius said...

For the record, I do not agree with Wilders on the idea of banning the Koran.

The Koran is a dangerous document, in my opinion.

However, I would be happy the elimination of Islamism, or political Islam.

The Koran presents a worldview in which there is no separation of Mosque and State. This is Islamism/Political Islam. The Koran calls for all who are not Muslims to be converted, killed, or subjugated. The Koran says Mohammed it the perfect man. And, he was a warrior who killed people, took their women as sex slaves, and stole their property. Muslims are to follow the authority of such a man? What a disaster.

Now, if Muslims are able to re-contextualize all these ideas, turn them into transcendental notions - mysticism - then that is great. I'm happy.

But the fact remains, if we read the Koran, we're still going to be advised to kill apostates and gays. That is not good.

Neither is it good that the Bible calls for these punishments. And, while Christians and Jews have re-contextualized these ideas in their scriptures, the fact remains, the Bible does, in places, call for gays and apostates to be killed.

And, so does the Koran.

But, if Muslims will just cut out the Islamist bullshit, I'll be happy with that as well. And, when I say Islamist bullshit, I mean not only that they attempt to punish people who make fun of their prophet, but also that they attempt to redefine marriage contracts to make women the property of men, or give women half the voice of a man in a court of law.

I don't care what kind of agreements men and women make between themselves personally, as long as they can enter and exit those agreements according to American law, wherein males and females are considered equal human beings.

And finally, I really would prefer to never see a fucking burqa in person ever again. No face coverings, no Niqabs, no masks of shame.

Whenver I see a Burqa, I am reminded of seeing a black slave (a la Kunta Kinte) with a chained collar around his neck, for surely the Burqa is a signal of the enslavement of a woman, and it is a signal telling us her man is an Islamist, and he is her owner.

Pastorius said...

The ideas embodied in the Koran foster a certain type of culture. Damien alludes to various schools of Islamic Jurisprudence. These schools have been unsuccessful in squash Islamist thought. 1300 years have gone by, the world has changed, but still Political Islam abounds.

Primitivism, lack of education, and economic conditions do contribute to chaos and decadence. Uganda is a good example. It is also a good example of a nation which was ruled by a hardline Islamist just 32 years ago.

A good example of Primitivism's effect on Islam today is the phenomenon of Honor Killings. Honor Killings are not recommended in the Koran, or the Hadith. And yet, they are a severe problem in the Islamic world. Truth is, Honor Killings are a problem wherever Primitivism reigns.

But Islam does encourage this Primitivism, even sets fire to it, by emboldening it with the notion that women are property, chattel, a tilth.

So yes, cultural traditions, economic conditions, education and the lack thereof, do influence Africa and the Middle East. But, Islam is a dominant force. And, to say that it's force has not been retrograde is to fly in the face of the assertion that Cultural Primitivism has been a retrograde force in Africa and the Middle East.

D Charles QC said...

I agree on the burqa, it is actually cultural and not Islamic at all. It is banned from Al-Azhar the most famous of all Islamic Universities, so what does that tell you...

One thing I learnt from my many years of travel to Muslim countries is that there is another issue, that is Arab-cultural dominance. Non-Arab Muslims - the majority by the way, often get rather annoyed at how Arabs think they own the religion and how they themselves confuse - perhaps deliberatly - what is Islamic and actually what is Peninsular Arab culture. I add the Peninsular because even Moroccans consider themselves Moroccan not very much "Arab".

We will have to agree to disagree on the interpretation of the Koran because for me if it was the case, then why is not strict Sharia in all 56 nations? Also I would add that fundamentalist Christians and evangalists would jump up and say that the Bible and the State is the one and the same thing and the gay/lesbian/bi community would suffer. Today I just got the Spanish translation of the new Maltese Marriage ACT which will actually allow divorce in that country. As a dual-Spanish national, I watch (and still watch) the pressure cooker that exists because gay-marriage is legal here. When the law was signed, 12 parliamentarians and dozens of civil servants actually quit....

Pastorius said...

Damien II writes: I would add that fundamentalist Christians and evangalists would jump up and say that the Bible and the State is the one and the same thing and the gay/lesbian/bi community would suffer.

I respond: Some Christians would say that, and most would not. I consider myself a Fundamentalist Christian, meaning I believe the Bible is the Word of God. But, I do not believe Gays and Apostates should be stoned to death. And, I don't know any Christians who do. I have met Christians who would desire a "Christian nation", but I'm never clear on what they mean, because these are the same people who would stand up for the right of a person to say, do, and believe what they choose to say, do, and believe.

True enough that many Christians would argue about tits on TV, pornography on the internet, the "homosexual agenda" on TV, etc. They would say the encroachment has gone too far. Too much is allowed. But, for the overwhelming majority, there issue is a matter of degree, not of kind. I don't know any Christians who want to go back to no dancing, no skirts above the knee, etc.

Anyway, all that is cultural as well. The Bible certainly does not prohibit dancing or skirts above the knee.

Anyway, I'm getting off track. The point is, once again, you are trying to draw a moral equivalence where there is none. We can not cite any place in the world where Christian governments are stoning gays to death. And, in America the nation which is most "Christian" Glee is one of the top 10 TV shows, and we all love to check out Lindsay Lohan's tits on the internet.

And, just for the record;

D Charles QC said...

"We can not cite any place in the world where Christian governments are stoning gays to death" but yet they "wanted" to make it a capital crime in Uganda...

Yet Pakistan had a female PM and now has a female Foreign Minister. Yet two thirds of Arab language satellite chanels are music and dance (and produced/based in Muslim countries) and yet, and yet and so on and so forth.

The point being that you are falling for the propoganda yourself produced by the Spencers, Wilders, GoVs, Gellers etc. If you actually go and travel to all but the hard-core 13 countries, you will find that yes there are ultra-conservatives in their sectors, the country side is a generation behind and superstitious but life is not even remotely as is depecticed in the blogs and by media. Sure you can print a dozen examples every day (and Spencer and GoV does) but then if we put some effort as they do, we can publish all sorts of trash each day as well from our world. I see on well organised websites items regularly depicting my Catholic Faith as the "bedrock of child molestation".

It is how radicals depict/interpret religious texts that matters and to be frank it is incorrect and a bit arrogant not to give the same respect given to one's own holy scriptures and somehow judge differently others. As mentioned, the OT sanctioned the entire destruction from the face of the planet tribes and we judge that as being simply examples of history or as divine judgement and yet somehow interpretations of the Koran has to be taken literally as radical and hard-line Muslims do and not as the majority do? That just does not add up and unfortunately that is very Spenceresque in that his method has changed to supporting the radical view as the only one and any other Muslim (ie most Muslims and most governments) as "not being good Muslims". That just does not stick and smacks of sinister agendas.

Pastorius said...

You write: Yet Pakistan had a female PM and now has a female Foreign Minister.

I respond: This is actually a very good point. I have given this some consideration.

I think you would agree with me that this is to Pakistan's credit. I think you would also agree with me that the Arab Islamic world has a dearth of female leaders.

I think I would chalk this Pakistani/female leader phenomenon up to the cultural influences we had been discussing.

Pakistan is, essentially, India. And, though the Hindus/Indian people do not have the greatest record on their treatment of women, they are more forward than almost any other land on Earth.

India has had female leaders, as has Europe.

America, as we know, has never been led by a female.

Damien, you write: life is not even remotely as is depecticed in the blogs and by media

I respond: Yes, I would imagine that is the case.

But, what we discuss here is the ideology of Sharia/Jihad/Islamism/Political Islam.

That is what we oppose.

So, really, as I have said, it is not that we believe Muslim people are evil. We really are opposed to Sharia/political Islam.

Why bother ourselves with the business of people who are not living in direct contravention of human rights. If people are living and letting others live, if they are enjoying family, music, food, sex, business, and the other pleasures of life, then fine. What am I supposed to write about it?

I could go on and on about the UN report on Developing Nations which concentrated on the Arab world (this came out around 2002-2004) which stated that the entire Arab world had less then 200 patents granted between 1990-2000, while South Korea had over 17,000 patents in the same period.

I could use such things to support my argument that Islam is retrograde, and indeed, that is the case. However, that does not concern me nearly as much as Political Islam. I just want to see an end to the encroachment of Political Islam. And, I will say it again, it is the Islam of the Koran. Until Muslims buy off, en masse, in codified form, on the idea that stoning gays and apostates to death is to be left to Allah, and Allah only, and until these ideas are inspired by major schools of Islamic jurisprudence and supported by major Muslim political organizations, media outlets, academic institutions, and governments etc. then there is a big fucking problem.

Pastorius said...

You wrote: the OT sanctioned the entire destruction from the face of the planet tribes and we judge that as being simply examples of history or as divine judgement and yet somehow interpretations of the Koran has to be taken literally as radical and hard-line Muslims do and not as the majority do? That just does not add up

I respond: You are being intellectually dishonest in this argument. This is not, at all, a response to my response to you.

You can do better than that.

D Charles QC said...

Your comment about patents is interesting and falls under the same category as "the Muslim World is backwards (retrograde in your words) because of Islam". Though you discussed the Arab World, it comes down to the same argument though. The answer is how many patents and how advanced is Central America, Latin America, Central or Western Africa? The answer is peace, stability and economics which then results in higher educations and persuits of advancement.

The Arab World in paticular has not had much luck in peace, stability and economics.

As for the comment on the Old Testiment, my point is clearly in response to your consistant comments regarding the Koran as somehow special in ordering domination and destruction and thus I expressed my view that this is not really the case and thus I pointed out the reality that it is in unique.

As a Catholic, I accept the Old Testiment as being an important record and history of how God's faith grew upon this world but it is the New Testiment that shows Jesus's Message. Within that framework, the realities of man's impact and abuse of this Message must not be ignored and the Bible has been used as an excuse for many abominations. Though I do not accept the Koran as God's work, I see no difference in the situation, I have as part of my degree studied it, discussed it with Imams that confirmed that understanding. We should add that Islam is one of the three Abrahamic Faiths and though we Christians do not accept any prophethood of Mohammed, we (I believe) are obliged to acknowledge its' Abrahamic origin, their veneration of Moses, Abraham and Jesus.

ps. if you consider this thread has gone to long, feel fee to finish it off.